> -----Original Message----- > From: Jasdip Singh <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2023 10:40 AM > To: Hollenbeck, Scott <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search- > 20 > > Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click > links > or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is > safe. > > On 4/5/23, 8:40 AM, "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Mario Loffredo <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> > > Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2023 4:24 AM > > To: Andrew Newton <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>; Hollenbeck, > > Scott <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > > Cc: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]> > > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] WGLC: > > draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search- > > 20 > > > > Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not > > click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and > > know the content is safe. > > > > Hi Scott and Andy, > > > > Il 04/04/2023 18:33, Andrew Newton ha scritto: > > > On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 9:20 AM Hollenbeck, Scott > > > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > >> [SAH] Nit: as alluded to by Jasdip above, RFC 7231 has been > > >> obsoleted by > > RFC 9110. > > >> > > >> The 501 text is 9110 is consistent with 7231, but I don’t think > > >> it’s limited to > > an invalid method. If the operative text is “the server does not > > support the functionality required to fulfill the request”, the > > response can be returned for > > *any* condition in which the server does not support the functionality > > required to fulfill the request. It doesn’t say that “the server does > > not support the requested method”. I still believe that 501 would be the > > best > response. > > >> > > > After rereading the text, I agree with Scott. > > > > [ML] Just to understand better, daes it mean that an RDAP server > > should support additional lookups and searches to those really > > implemented with the only purpose of returning an error ? > > [SAH] No. The point I'm trying to make is that if a client sends a valid > request to > an RDAP server, and that request can't be processed because the requested > functionality isn't supported, then a 501 response is appropriate. > > Precisely. Let's take an example. Say, a client sends a > "nameservers/reverse_search/entity?..." query but the server has not > implemented the "nameservers?..." search path segment (section 3.2.2 from > RFC 9082) to start with. Then, a 501 (Not Implemented) is a more appropriate > response for this reverse search query; 400 (Bad Request) won't work here > because that client query is well-formed to begin with. Right?
[SAH] Yes, I believe so. Scott _______________________________________________ regext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
